Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic shocked the world with how fast it could infect people and the way they died. Before the vaccine was invented, most governments tried to do their best to contain the situation, especially using measures that seemed harsh. There are two sides or perspectives on how to view the steps imposed. For instance, implementing the restrictions such as lockdown, which consists of closing the business establishments, means that individuals are less likely to get infected. The main form of transmission of the coronavirus is contact with an infected person, and thus, without meeting many people, the chance of contracting the disease is low.
However, there are those that view the measures as not needed, for instance, the business owners and some members of the parliament. Their argument lies in the fact that some of the deaths recorded at this point consisted of the older population dying as a result of other factors. As true as this is, the government’s reason for imposing the restrictions is to protect the citizens, especially those that are vulnerable to contracting the illness. This paper looks at the issue of COVID-19 restrictions and their impact on society.
Discussion
The United Kingdom, alongside many nations, implemented a lockdown whereby the hospitality sector was greatly impacted. All this was done to ensure that the cases of infection were reduced. Establishments such as hotels, restaurants, and bars had to be shut down temporarily as part of the restrictions. Social distancing was advocated for and recommended to act as an intervention that helps the people to remain healthy as well as break the transmission chain. Social distancing refers to staying at home and away from other people as much as possible to aid in preventing the spread of the coronavirus disease. The practice encourages the utilization of online video and phone communication rather than in-person contact.
During the pandemic, the practice largely kept younger children from attending daycare, school, and contact with peers. Although social distancing seemed difficult, research shows that it offers benefits to the population, especially in terms of preventing the infection of COVID-19. For those arguing against the restrictions, this would be a great point that can help to understand the significance of the measures put in place by the government. It is easy for kids to interact with one another without knowing how to protect themselves from infectious illnesses. After contracting a disease, they can as well, with ease, transfer that into the whole household. They can be said to be the fastest agents of the infection and thus, need monitoring.
By encouraging social distancing, the rate and the number of cases of infections and deaths due to the pandemic reduced. Doing this ensures that the situation returns to normal within a short time. When individuals are unhealthy, their purchasing power is low since they are aiming to spend much of their financial resources in trying to get better. Therefore, it is important to support a measure by the government.
Apart from social distancing, a lockdown was implemented with the purpose of reducing the number of individuals each case confirmed infects. The objective was to maintain the reproduction below one, that is, R<1, with every instance averagely infecting less than a single person. There are two ways to reach the goal, including mitigation as well as suppression. The former means slowing the spread of the pandemic by reducing the demand for healthcare whereas protecting the population most at risk of getting infected. This is accomplished through isolation of suspected cases as well as their households and using the social distancing practice on the elderly and individuals at greatest risk, such as young children.
Suppression seeks to reverse the growth by decreasing the number of cases by encouraging individuals to maintain a healthy distance between themselves. Various surveys conducted during the pandemic indicate that as painful as the lockdown may prove to be, it is effective. Without the implementation of any of the two measures, peak mortality is expected in a period of three months (Geng et al., 2021). In this case, eighty-one percent of the United Kingdom populace would get infected, with more than five hundred thousand people dying (Geng et al., 2021). Isolating both suspected and confirmed cases while socially distancing the elderly would lower the demand for care by two-thirds (Geng et al., 2021). To reach closer to the objective, which is attaining R<1, implementing all the measures mentioned above is required.
A study finds that intensive policy is forecasted to lead to a reduction in vital care needs. This is from a peak about one month after the introduction of the interventions and a drop afterward while guidelines remain. It is possible that long-term suppression is the best way of reducing infections as well as deaths. Starting on the 23rd January of 2020, the Chinese government locked down one of the provinces (Geng et al., 2021). It stopped transportation in as well as out and abolished millions of citizens and non-citizens from working or attending schools (Geng et al., 2021). In some places, residents were forced to lower the number of times they went to the stores. The United Kingdom followed the trend as soon as the infections and deaths went high.
The unexpected lockdown of many people was regarded as a vast experiment, but statistics show that it worked. For instance, following that, the situation started getting better. Other countries decided to implement the same measures and require their citizens to remain at home except when they are trying to get food, medical supplies, or going to work. For some, both lockdown and social distancing hurt the economy of the United Kingdom during the pandemic, especially the hospitality sector, which might not be true.
The restrictions put in place to help contain the spread of coronavirus have a negative impact on society. The British government made efforts to settle a dispute with the lawmakers over how it handled the COVID-19 pandemic. It confirmed that it would ensure that the parliament is involved in making decisions concerning the restrictions. Some members of parliament have argued that some of the measures are, instead of serving the people, destroying them, for instance, in the business sector. The hospitality industry in 2019 contributed fifty-nine billion euros in gross value added to the United Kingdom economy, about three percent of the total output (Geng et al., 2021). In the three months up until September two years ago, there were more than two million jobs in the sector in the nation, which represents seven percent of the total UK employment. There existed two hundred and twenty thousand establishments as of 1st January in 2020, four percent of all businesses (Greenberg et al., 2020). These depict three to five percent of businesses in every country as well as the region.
The food and accommodation sector has been among the most affected industries by coronavirus disease. Restrictions on businesses have greatly impacted the hospitality trade turnover. Economic output in the area was down ninety percent in April of 2020, in contrast to two months prior. The one recovered over the 2020 summer improved by lessening the measures to prevent the infections. It again dropped from September as the disease rose and restrictions were imposed. Continuing fixed costs as well as accumulating debt together with low cash reserves and lower revenues are crucial worries for the line of business. As of March of 2021, it was reported that forty-three percent of businesses were trading in contrast to seventy-four percent across all the sectors.
More than half of the establishments in the hospitality industry had paused temporarily to trade, in contrast to twenty-four percent across all the sectors. Close to one in five businesses had zero confidence that they would survive the following three months (Greenberg et al., 2020). From January to March of 2020 to July and September of the same year, the number of employees in the industry dropped by six percent (Greenberg et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the pandemic has not caused an increase in the rate of unemployment as expected. In part, this is due to the existence of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS). The number of job opportunities on furlough under the CJRS in the hospitality sector peaked at more than 1.5 million in April of 2020 (Greenberg et al., 2020). From that time to October, the figures declined ridiculously (Greenberg et al., 2020). Nonetheless, increases have been witnessed due to two separate lockdowns since October. On the 31st of January, fifty-six percent of available job vacancies in the hospitality sector were furloughed under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, in contrast to sixteen percent across all the sectors.
Data from the online restaurant booking service offers an indication that the customer demand for eating out during 2020 reduced and highlights the effect of changing restrictions on consumer numbers. People ate at restaurants more when compared to 2019 due to a program named Eat Out Help Out. On the last day of the initiative, which was the 31st of August, there was a two hundred and sixteen percent rise (Greenberg et al., 2020). From early September, the rate of dining at restaurants or establishments declined to within ten percent of the previous year as a result of the new restrictions.
The hospitality industry has witnessed the largest economic drops in every sector of the economy since the outbreak of the COVID-19. The peak of the economic downturn could be seen in April when the economic output in the industry was ninety percent below the pre-pandemic levels. In July 2020, when people were allowed to resume dining outside, output still remained down forty-four percent in contrast to February (Greenberg et al., 2020). The situation recovered in August as it was boosted by the government’s initiative named Eat Out to Help Out and the lessening of the lockdown regulations. The industry experienced seventy-one percent growth in August as compared to the prior month, something driven by the rise in output in the hospitality sector. Nevertheless, the output still remained down fourteen percent in August of 2020 compared to February of the same year. The output greatly dropped from September as new restrictions were implemented. At the start of 2021, the output was sixty-seven percent below the pre-pandemic levels.
Data on the labor market shows that there is a decline in the number of employees in the hospitality business. From January to March and from July to September in 2020, the number of people working in the industry reduced by six percent (Jüni et al., 2020). The COVID-19 crisis has not resulted yet in the unanticipated increase in unemployment, even though this will be partly a result of the CJRS as furloughed individuals are classified as employed. The sectors most impacted by the pandemic have a greater than average proportion of workers from marginalized groups.
Of the people who are still employed in the hospitality industry, the pandemic had an effect on weekly hours worked. At the peak of the initial lockdown that was implemented between April and June 2020, the average weekly hours worked dropped to thirteen (Jüni et al., 2020). This is a decrease of fifty-four percent from the same quarter the previous year (Jüni et al., 2020). The reason for the great fall is that during this time, the industry was completely shut down as one of the measures by the UK government. Additionally, the chances of working from home were scarce (Jüni et al., 2020). Average hours for every employee dropped by twenty percent over the same time. In three months towards the end of 2020, the mean weekly hours per single worker was eighteen. In the same period, twelve months prior, the figure was twenty-seven (Jüni et al., 2020). Much of this is attributed to the new lockdown that was imposed on the land from November to December of that year, when cafes, bars, restaurants, and pubs were needed to stop operating.
As much as the COVID-19 restrictions, on the one hand, sought to bring positive results to society, they, on the other hand, resulted in a high rate of mental illnesses. The pandemic brought in its outbreak an unpredicted psychological wellness crisis. The WHO published a policy as means of giving support to various groups. Experts in the field claim that the well-being of a person should be of great concern, especially after the coronavirus. During this time, anxiety increased due to fear of getting infected (Jüni et al., 2020). It was caused by uncertainties as well since much wrong information about the disease was circulating on the internet. In addition to this, they argue that the measures implemented by the government to reduce the rate of infection, such as social distancing and lockdown, are worsening the mental status of people trying to cope. This can be seen by the increase in the number of individuals seeking mental health services.
It is important to note that it was during the pandemic that man families struggled emotionally and even financially. The toll the situation had on people made them become frustrated to the point the number of cases reported every day about domestic violence increased. Some of the measures the UK government implemented ensured that the majority would not be employed, and thus, without earning, they would need to find means to cater to their homes. Most of the time, they could not, and therefore, numerous households experienced fights that had origin from life discouragement (Jüni et al., 2020). This shows that the restrictions had a negative impact on the lives of the people. It is equally essential to note that some of the deaths recorded at the time did not happen as a result of the coronavirus.
Conclusion
The paper has been able to look at the issue of COVID-19 restrictions and their impact on society. For instance, the practice of social distancing has largely protected many British nationals from getting infected by the coronavirus. Social distancing has kept younger children from attending daycare, school, and contact with peers. Research shows that it offers benefits to the population in preventing the infection of COVID-19. It is easy for kids to interact with one another without knowing how to protect themselves from infectious illnesses. After contracting a disease, they can as well, with ease, transfer that into the whole household. They can be said to be the fastest agents of the infection and thus, need monitoring.
Additionally, by protecting the large population from getting infected, the government is ensuring that the labor market remains steady. There are other countries that, after the pandemic, had to source expertise in various fields and sectors from other nations, which is expensive and bad for the economy. Despite the positive impact of the restrictions, lawmakers argue that the measures have been inconsiderate, especially in terms of the mental well-being of people. Issues such as anxiety increased due to fear of infection. It was caused by uncertainties as well since much wrong information about the disease circulated on the internet. Steps, for example, lockdown, during this time, worsened the situation since it became even harder to access mental health services. The domestic violence rate rose as the people could no longer feed their families as before, which caused frustration. Every state has an obligation to ensure its citizens are living in the best conditions. However, before acting to address a problem, it is vital to do much consultation with their representatives.
Reference List
Geng, D.C., Innes, J., Wu, W. and Wang, G. (2021) ‘Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on urban park visitation: a global analysis’, Journal of forestry research, 32(2), pp. 553-567. Web.
Greenberg, N.E., Wallick, A. and Brown, L.M. (2020) ‘Impact of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on community-dwelling caregivers and persons with dementia’, Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(1), p. 220. Web.
Jüni, P., Rothenbühler, M., Bobos, P., Thorpe, K.E., Da Costa, B.R., Fisman, D.N., Slutsky, A.S. and Gesink, D. (2020) ‘Impact of climate and public health interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective cohort study’, Cmaj, 192(21), pp. 566-573. Web.